In the podcast, Jeffreys critiques the factors that have led to the current place of the women's movement: the popularization of identity politics, "intersectionality", the replacement of Women's Studies with "Gender Studies", the popularization of the term "gender", etc. In her view, the women's movement ceased to exist as a women's movement sometime around the mid-1980s and the shift away from female-centered feminism can be traced to the popularization of neoliberal ideology around the start of the 1980s and the restructuring of Western universities to function like business corporations.

An insight I found to be particularly dead-on was her commentary on intersectional theory, which she argues has collapsed interest in the women's movement among younger women by promoting infighting; a feat achieved by prioritizing the differences among women rather than prioritizing our shared interests as an entire class.

Sheila Jeffreys is probably right in "her commentary on intersectional theory, [in] which she argues has collapsed interest in the women's movement among younger women by promoting infighting; a feat achieved by prioritizing the differences among women rather than prioritizing our shared interests as an entire class."

Intersectionality, or your group identity, is defined by all these and more differences:

And that's the second problem with it, you are no longer identified as an individual but the group you belong to. Yes, we have always been defined by the groups we belong to. But in premodern times these were natural groups, family, tribe, community, religion, market, even politics. The groups intersectionality or identity politics defines are artificial and abstract.

The final problem is the intersections have automatic assignments of good and evil. Those identified as oppressors are unthinkingly evil and vice versa. If your white, male, Christian, you're in trouble, not for your choises of actions with others, but for the artifical and abstract evil inherent in your group.

This postmodern crapola is rooted in Marxism.

Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

As you know, I have reservations about individualism and see value in corporate identities but otherwise I think you are correct. Post-modern identities tend to be trivial and/or meaningless. Women, for example, are not a class. Like "mankind" and "humanity", terms like "women" have no historical, political or cultural content. Secondly, yes, post-modern identities are invariably couched in moral terms.

Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.

As you know, I have reservations about individualism and see value in corporate identities but otherwise I think you are correct. Post-modern identities tend to be trivial and/or meaningless. Women, for example, are not a class. Like "mankind" and "humanity", terms like "women" have no historical, political or cultural content. Secondly, yes, post-modern identities are invariably couched in moral terms.

An over-emphasis on the individual leads to atomization, isolation, estrangement--looking for the right word. We have to see ourselves as part of many communities, at home, at work, at church and so on.

Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"